FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 4, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 38 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-2 06 31 -PAS-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us WALTER C. LOU ISSAINT, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 4, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: W al te r Lou is sa in t ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on an d 1 80 -m on th sen te nc e fo rpo ss es si ng a fi rearm an d a m m un it io n wh il e a co nv ic te d fe lo n, i n v io la ti on of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 9 24 (e). Lou is sa in t ra is es th ree a rg um en ts on ap pe al , whi chwe ad dr es s i n turn b el ow. Aft er a tho ro ug h re vi ew of th e rec or d and pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we affi rm . I. Fi rs t, Lo ui ss ai ntarg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y refu si ng to gra nta m is tri al aft er the go ve rn m en t p la y edfor th e jury a reco rd ed
co nv ers at io n b etweenLou is sa in t an d a n u nd erco ve r po li ce o ffi cer. The reco rd in g, whi chco ns is te d o f hi dd encam era f oo ta ge of Lo ui ss ai nttrying to sel l a p is to l t o th e und erco ve r of

fic er, co nt ai ne d s ta te m en ts by L ou is sa in t d es cri bi ng ot he r weap on s tha t wer e p ur

po rte dl y “ on th e m ark etno w.” Lou is sa in t ar gu es th atth es e st at em en ts un fai rly preju di cedth e jury andul ti m at el y “ res ul t[e d] in
. . . a v erd ic t ba se d o n e m ot io ns in st eadof . . . th e ev id en ce, o r la ckth ereo f.” W e can no t ag ree. W e rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n t he de ni al of am ot io n fo r a m is tri al
. Uni te d S tate s v . Ram ire z, 42 6 F .3d13 44 , 13 53 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). A dis tri ctco urt jud ge ha s d is cret io n t o g ran t a m is tri al be cau se th e jud ge oc cupi es th e “be st po si ti onto ev al ua te th e p reju di ci al effec t o f a s ta te m en t o r ev id en ce o n t he jury. ” Uni te d S tate s v . Delg ad o, 3 21 F.3d13 38 , 13 46 –4 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . Mor eo ve r, if p ro pe rly adm it te d e vi de nc e su ffi ci en tl y est ab li sh es 2th e d efen da nt ’s gu il t, the de fen da nt ’s rig ht s ar e n otsubs ta nt ia ll y affe ct edby the di st ric t co urt’s ev id en ti ary erro r. Ram ire z, 42 6 F .3dat 1 35 3. The di stric t co urt p ro pe rly adm it te d t he reco rd in g i nt o e vi de nc e. To b e su re, ev id en ce o f un rel at edwron gd oi ng is no rm al ly notadm is si bl e in a cri m in al tri al
. See F ed . R. Evi d. 4 04 (b ) (p ro hi bi ti ng in tro du ct io n o f ev id en ce o f an ot he r cri m e o r actto pro ve a pe rs on ’s cha ract er i n o rd er t o s ho w act io n i n c on fo rm ity th erewi th ). Su chev id en ce i s adm is si bl e, ho wev er, fo r certa in othe r pu rp os es , in cl ud in g t o pr ov e m ot iv e, in te nt , or abs en ce o f m is take or a cci de nt , pro vi de d tha t, upo n reque st , th e g ov ern m en t g iv es reas on ab le no ti ce o f th e g en eral na tu re o f th e ev id en ce t o b e in tro du cedat t ria l. Id . Con stru in g t hi s ex cep ti on , we hav e ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ [e]vi de nc e, no t p artof t he cri m e ch arg edbu t p ert ai ni ng to . . . ev en ts ex pl ai ni ng th e co nt ex t, m ot iv e an d s et -up o f th e cri m e, is pro pe rly adm it te d if i t fo rm s an in te gr al an d n atur al pa rt o f anacco un t o f th e cri m e, or is ne ces sa ry

to co m pl et e th e [cr im e’s] sto ry

. . . fo r th e jury.” Unit edSta te s v . Chu rch , 95 5 F .2d 68 8, 7 00 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s an d a lt erat io ns om it te d)
. Und er thi s s ta nd ard , Lou is sa in t’s s ta te m en ts were p ro pe rly adm is si bl e to sh ow h is kn owl ed ge of f

ire arm s an d t o s ho w th athe in te nt io na ll y po ss es se d t he fir earm forwhi chhe was i nd ic te d. Se e, e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v . Wrig ht , 39 2 F .3d 12 69 , 12 73 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ); Un it edSta te s v . Bro wn, 9 61 F.2d10 39 , 10 42 (2d 3Ci r. 19 92 ). Lou is sa in t h as th us no t d em on st rat edth atth e adm is si onof t he vi de o

cau se d h im

pre jud ic e, an d a s a r es ul t the di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n refu si ng to ord er a m is tri al
. II. Seco nd , Lou is sa in t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erro ne ou sl y de te rm in edth at Lou is sa in t was subjec t t o the 18 0- m on th m an da to ry -m in im um sen te nc e requi red by the Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act (“ ACCA”) , 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e). Sp eci fic al ly, Lou is sa in t ar gu es th atth e ACCA i s i napp li cab le be cau se (1) he ha s o nl y two co nv ic ti on s, n otth ree a s re qu ire d b y th e ACCA; (2) hi s co nv ic ti on s, re su lt in g fro m th ree a rm edrob be rie s wh enhe was 1 6 years o ld , were n otqu al ifyin g “ vi ol en t fel on ie s” ; an d (3 ) hi s co nv ic ti on s s ho ul d c ou ntas asi ng le cri m in al ep is od e in st ead of th ree d is ti nc t co nv ic ti on s. W e rev ie w de no vo whet he r anad jud ic at io n qua li fie s fo r th e p ur po se of ap pl y in g t he ACCA to enha nc e a d efen dant ’s sen te nc e. Uni te d S ta te s v . Day , 46 5 F.3 d 1 26 2, 1 26 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Und er the ACCA, as co di fie d a t 1 8 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e), an in di vi du al co nv ic te d u nd er Se ct io n 9 22 (g ) is subjec t t o am an da to ry m in im um 15 -y ear s en te nc e if

he ha s thr ee p rio r fed eral or s tate co nv ic ti on s “ fo r a vi ol en t fe lo ny or a s eri ou s dru g o ffen se , or b ot h, co m m itte d o n o ccas io ns di ffer en t fro m on e an othe r.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(1 ). Sect io n 9 24 (e), d efi ne s a “ vi ol en t 4fel on y ” as :

an y cri me pu ni sh ab le by im pr is on m en t fo r a te rm ex ceed in g on e y ear, or an y act of juv en i l e d e l i n q ue nc y in vo lv in g th e us e or carry in g of a fir earm , kn if

e , or de st ru ct iv e de vi ce th at wou ld be pu ni sh ab le by im pr is on m en t fo r su chterm if c omm it te d b y

anadul t, tha t– ( i ) ha s as an el em en t th e us e, at te m pt ed us e, or th reat en ed u s e o f ph y si cal for ce ag ai ns t the pe rs on of a no th er; or (ii ) is bu rg l a ry, ars on , or ex to rti on , in vo lv es us e of ex pl os iv es , or ot he rwis e in vo lv es co nduc t th at pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in

jury to an ot he r. 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 2) (B).

“ Wha t co ns ti tu te s a . . . cri m e [p un is habl e b y im pr is on m en t fo r lo ng er tha n on e y ear] sh al l b e d et erm in edinacco rd an ce wi th th e la w of the juri sd ic ti on in whi chth e p ro ceed in gs were h el d.” 18 U.S.C. § 9 21 (a)( 20 ). In app lying th is rul e, we ha ve he ldth ata gu il ty ple a in Flo rid a st at e co urt fo ll owe d b y a withh ol di ng of ad jud ic at io n a ndth e im

po si ti on of p ro ba ti on co ns ti tu te s a “ co nv ic ti on ” und er the ACCA. Uni te d S ta te s v . San ti ag o, 6 01 F.3d12 41 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). W e h av e al so he ldth atth e ACCA i nc lu de s as a “ co nv ic ti on ” a cri m e co m m it te d b y a juv en il e who was trie d a s an adul t i f th e cri m e o th erwi se m eet s the de fin it io n o f a “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” (whi chin cl ud es “ an y cri m e p un is habl e b y im pr is on m en t fo r a t erm

ex ceed in g o ne y ear” ). See Uni te d S ta te s v . Spe ars , 44 3 F.3 d 1 35 8, 1 36 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) ; Un it edSta te s v . W il ks , 46 4 F .3d12 40 , 12 42 –4 3 5(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Flo rid a la w det erm in es whet he r Lou is sa in t’s co nv ic ti on s qua li fy

as “ vi ol en t fe lo ni es ” und er the ACCA. See 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 1( a)(2 0) . In Fl or id a,

“ an y pe rs on ov er 1 4 c anbe tri edas a n a du ltan d t ha t . . . con vi ct io n s ha ll be tre at edas an a du ltco nv ic ti on forfutur e p ur po se s u nd er Fl or id a law.” Uni te d St at es v. Cu re, 9 96 F.2d11 36 , 11 41 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). Fi na ll y , th e ACCA re qu ire s a 1 5- y ear m in im um sen te nc e o nl y

if the th ree pr ed ic at e co nv ic ti on s re su ltfro m cri m es “ co m

m it te d o n o ccas io ns di ffer en t fr om on e an ot he r.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(1 ). Altho ug h t he pre di cat e o ffen se s m us t b e di st in ct , eve n asm al l d iff eren ce i n t im e o r pl ace d is ti ng ui sh es co nv ic ti on s fo r pu rp os es of t he ACCA. See Un it edSta te s v . Sne ed , 60 0 F .3d13 26 , 13 30 (11 th Ci r. 20 10 ). As s ta te d i n Un it edSta te s v . Pop e, 13 2 F .3d68 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) : th e “ su cces sf

ul ” co m pl et io n of on e cri m e pl us a subs eque nt co ns ci ou s de ci si on to co m

m it an ot he r cri m e m ak es th at se co nd cri m e di st in ct fro m t h e f i r s t f or th e pu rp os es of th e ACCA. Acco rd in gl y , we ho ld th at s o lo ng as pr ed ic at e cri m es are su cces si ve rathe r th an si m ul ta ne ou s, t h ey co ns ti tu te se pa rat e cri mi n a l ep is od es fo r pu rp os es of th e ACCA. A sh owi ng th at th e cri m es refl ect di st in ct ag gr es si on s, e s p e c i al ly if th e de fen da nt co m

m it te d th e cri m es in di ffer en t pl aces , is pa rti cu la rly pr ob at iv e o f th e se qu en ti al na tu re o f th os e cri m es . Id . at 6 92
. The di stric t co urt p ro pe rly foundLou is sa in t s ub ject t o t he 15 -y ear m in im um se nt en ce re qu ire d b y

th e ACCA. Fi rs t, al th ou ghhe was o nl y 16 y ears ol d wh enhe

6co m

m it te d t he cri m es , Lou is sa in t s us ta in edth ree s ep arat e co nv ic ti on s fo r th ree vi ol en t fe lo ni es co m

mit te d o n thr ee d iff

eren t d ay s. Lo ui ss ai ntav ers th atth es e co nv ic ti on s s ho ul d n otserve as p red ic at e o ffen se s u nd er the ACCA b ecau se he
rece iv edth em

as ajuv en il e, bu t i t i s cl ear tha t Fl or id a la w tre at s ju ve ni le
co nv ic ti on s as pre di cat e o ffen se s fo r care er o ffen de r pu rp os es un de r Fl or id a’s vi ol en t o ffen de r st atut e. See, e.g ., W efo rdv. St at e, 78 4 S o. 2 d 1 22 2, 1 22 3– 24 (Fl a. 3dDCA 20 01 ); Whi tfi el d v . Sin gl et ary, 73 0 S o. 2 d 3 14 , 31 5 (F la . 3dDCA 19 99 ); s ee al so Cure, 9 96 F.3dat 1 14 1. As su ch , th es e co nv ic ti on s qua li fy as pr ed ic at e co nv ic ti on s u nd er ACCA. Seco nd , th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y co nc lu de d t ha t Lo ui ss ai nt ’s con vi ct io ns qu al ifi edas “ vi ol en t” forACCA p ur po se s. Lo ui ss ai ntco nt en ds th athe was n ot co nv ic te d o f “ vi ol en t” off en se s b ecau se he rece iv eda se nt en ce l as ti ng for les s tha n on e y ear. Th is arg um en t fa il s, h owe ve r, be cau se itis th e p ot en ti al len gt h o f a
se nt en ce ra th er tha n t he actua l s en te nc e im po se d t ha t i nf

orm s i ts futur e eff

ectfor
care er o ffen de r pu rp os es . Uni te d S ta te s v . Spe ars , 44 3 F .3dat 1 36 0– 61 (“ co nv ic ti on co un ts to ward s ACC A enh an cem en t b ecau se itwas p un is habl e b y im pr is on m en t fo r a t erm

ex ceed in g o ne y ear” ). Lou is sa in t’s s ug ge st io n t ha t h e sh ou ldno t b e subjec te d t o ACC A enh an cem en t b ecau se he di d n otrece iv e th e fu ll
se nt en ce t o wh ic h h e was ex po se d t hu s m is se s the m ark
. 7Thi rd , Lou is sa in t was co nv ic te d fo r th ree s ep arat e p red ic at e o ffen se s.

Lou is sa in t s ug ge st s tha t h is pre di cat e o ffen se s wer e actua ll y pa rt o f a “ co m

m on sc he m e,” b utth is arg um en t i s fo recl os edby ourho ld in gs inPo pe , 13 2 F .3dat 68 8– 89 , andSn eed , 60 0 F .3dat 1 33 0 (n ot in g tha t s m al l d iff eren ce i n t im e n eg at es arg um en t tha t unr el at edoff en se s ag ai ns t d iff

eren t v ic ti m s wer e p artof c omm on sc he m e o r pl an ). Acco rd in gl y , Lou is sa in t p ro pe rly recei ve d t he 15 -y ear m in im um m an da to ry

sen te nc e. III. Last ly, Lou is sa in t ar gu es th athi s 1 80 -m on th sen te nc e—t he m in im um se nt en ce al lo wedun de r th e ACCA— is un reas on ab le
. W e rev ie w a fin al sen te nc e im po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt fo r rea so nabl en es s. Uni te d S tate s v . W in in ge ar, 4 22 F.3d12 41 , 12 44 –4 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5)
. Rea so nabl en es s re vi ew is ak in to th e d efer en ti al ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard
. Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 1 28 S. Ct. 5 86 , 59 1 (2 00 7) . Und er the ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd , we rev ers e o nl y if the di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng co ns ti tu te s a c le ar erro r of jud gm en t. Un it edSta te s v . Frazi er, 3 87 F.3d12 44 , 12 59 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ).

“ [W] he n t he di st ric t co urt i m po se s a s en te nc e wit hi n the advi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge , we ord in ari ly w il l ex pe ctth atch oi ce t o b e a rea so nabl e o ne .” Uni te d S ta te s v. Tal le y , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). 8A sen te nc e m ay be eit he r pr oc edur al ly or subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . See Uni te d S tate s v . Hun t, 4 59 F.3d11 80 , 11 82 n.3 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). “ A sen te nc e m ay be pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le if the di st ric t co urt i m pr op erl y cal cu la te s the Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat s the Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry rathe r th anadvi so ry , fai ls to co ns id er the ap pr op ria te st atut ory fact or s, s el ect s a s en te nc e b as edon cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai ls to ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os ensen te nc e.” Uni te d S ta te s v. Go nz al ez, 5 50 F.3d13 19 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ), cert . den ie d, 12 9 S .Ct. 2 84 8 (2 00 9)
.

“ The rev ie w forsubs ta nt iv e unr eas on ab le ne ss in vo lv es ex am in in g the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g a n i nqui ry in to whet he r th e st atut ory fact or s i n § 35 53 (a) s up po rt t he sen te nc e in qu es ti on .” Id . at 1 32 4. Th e se nt en ci ng co urt m

us t i m po se a se nt en ce “ su ffi ci en t, b utno t g reat er tha n ne ces sa ry ,” to co m

pl y with t he pu rp os es of s en te nc in g s etforthin§ 3 55 3( a)(2 ),
na m el y , to refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pr ov id e jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se , det er cr im in al co nduc t, p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m futur e cri m in al co nduc t b y th e d efen da nt , andpro vi de th e d efen da ntwith
ne ed ededuc at io na l o r vo cat io na l trai ni ng or m ed ic al care . 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ). The di st ric t co urt m

us t al so co ns id er the na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se , th e h is to ry

an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e d efen da nt , th e k in ds of s en te nc es av ai labl e, 9th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , th e p ert in en t p ol ic y st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on , th e n eedto av oi d u nwa rran te d s en te nc in g d is pa rit y , andth e n eedto pr ov id e res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 1) , (3) -(7 ). “ [T]he p arty who ch al le ng es th e se nt en ce b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atth e se nt en ce i s un reas on ab le inth e li gh t o f bo th [th e] reco rdan d t he fact or s i n s ect io n 3 55 3( a).” Tall ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 88
. Und er thi s s ta nd ard , Lou is sa in t fa il s t o d em on st rat e th athi s s en te nc e is
un reas on ab le . Lou is sa in t i de nt ifi es no pro cedur al erro r by the di st ric t co urt i n im po si ng th e 1 80 -m on th sen te nc e. Andaltho ug h t he di stric t co urt co m m en te d t ha t itwou ldpre fer t o i m

po se a le ss er s en te nc e, “ no rel ev an t au th or ity pe rm it s a di st ric t co urt t o i m

po se a se nt en ce b el ow the st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um . In fact , th e co urt wo ul d h av e co m m it te d re ve rs ib le erro r if

itha d s en te nc edhi m

to le ss th an ” th e st atut ory

m in im um . Uni te d S tate s v . Gom es , No. 1 0- 11 22 5, s li p o p. at46 (11 th Cir . Oct. 1 , 20 10 ). Lou is sa in t’s s en te nc e is th us bo th pro cedur al ly and
subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl e. AFFIRMED.

10